User talk:MJL/Electoral Guide/2020

Possible Mistaken Candidate

Hi MJL—unless I'm mistaken, GeneralNotability doesn't seem to be running, but does have a header in your electoral guide. Perryprog (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog: Fixed. I meant to make that a spot for BDD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim

FWIW, I would say that Maxim is one of the most productive arbitrators on the mailing list in regards to dealing with appeals and general herding cats. There's a lot of arb business that is iceberg-like in its outward evidence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to second what David said. It might not be obvious to the public, but Maxim is working hard behind the scenes. To give you an idea, Maxim has sent about the same number of emails to the main list as myself and David combined - regularly responding to those who contact Arbcom. Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to third that. Unfortunately, since much business is necessarily behind the scenes, people who do most of their work there will not appear as engaged or active as those who do more work on-wiki but ArbCom needs both kinds of people to function well. Regards So Why 15:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Maxim for not updating my guide as I had said I would. I normally don't actually try to do those types of updates, but I figured I made statements that deserved hearing a response. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I just wanted to observe that mutual interaction bans are not intended to be interpreted as sanctions, only as peacekeeping (they are a finding that two individuals are having a personality conflict, not a finding that either has engaged in wrongdoing, or they would have received actual sanctions like a block, topic-ban, etc.). ArbCom has been clear about this in multiple cases, though it probably needs to be said more clearly in an ArbCom information page (like the one at WP:ASPERSIONS).

It's entirely reasonable to have civility concerns, of course, but the other thing (from 2013) was a very long time ago. "Still an active sanction" is a given and will probably be forever, because an admonition to simply obey civility policy is probably not something that would ever be removed on appeal at ARCA, since it is a principle that applies to everyone and is not actually a restriction of any kind (plus removing it might seem to imply one is no longer bound by that policy, ha ha). The fact that such things can be seen years later as "scarlet letters", though, is one of the reasons ArbCom/AE generally don't do this any longer, and instead uses findings of fact about incivility, a non-binding warning that isn't logged, or/and logging of a specific actual restriction, such as a topic ban for X number of months, etc.

I've not wanted to seem like I'm trying to pick an argument about what you're writing in your own candidate guide (especially for my own benefit), so I've waited to bring this up until after most votes have already been cast. It's more a "something to consider in future elections" matter, when other candidates might have had a two-way I-ban, or some "just follow the policy" quasi-restriction logged about them years ago. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: to be honest, I was suprised I didn't receive a response sooner. I don't veiw it as picking a fight as much as trying to correct the record.

To be completely forthright, I preferred writing about the events that happened several years ago than anything more recent when it came to you becuase I didn't want to leave the impression I was picking a side.

Working with others who you might not get along with is an important quality in a potential admin as is respecting their boundaries even if they seem unfair. With the BHG stuff, which may potentially be something you could deal with while on the committee, I had not seen the best stuff from you.

That is much like the pronoun essay as well. I think you talk about it much better now than you did back then. However, I am in a unique position there since I was one of only two users (as a Signpost contributor) to object to its publication before it was sent out. Therefore, I know you personally had actually little to do with the process of getting it distributed, but your reaction to the MFD wasn't exactly great either.

I could have easily mentioned any of that, but I felt it would muddy the watters too much. Instead, I went with the stuff that seemed more fair game like the quasi-restriction and 2013 disputes. That way I could talk about my concerns without addressing the touchy subject matter.

I hope that makes a bit of sense. Writing on mobile can be such a pain. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, I guess I should thank you for focusing on old stuff, then! It's reasonably connectable to later matters, like intemperance in dealing with BHG in a WP:LAME dispute. (FWIW, I've let her and the 3 co-nominators know I no longer intend to oppose her eventual re-RfA, barring some new and unrelated reason to do so.) Oh, if I get elected, I would obviously have to recuse on anything involving her.

On "sooner": Kudpung's point on voter guides, that they only matter much for the first few days the voting is open, is probably correct. I also had to, in my view, really carefully take another candidate to task (in a sculpted "word to the wise" form) on his discuss-the-candidate talk page, and that already seemed to be wandering close to "campaigning". >;-)

Working with others: I agree. It's something I've been improving on over the last 3+ years. There are all sorts of editors I used to get in topical squabbles with whom I now get along famously with, after some olive-branch bearing. I'm learning to just completely walk away from content areas that raise inter-personal troubles, sometimes for a year or longer, and while that does not always scratch a particular content-editing itch ("Someone is wrong on the Internet!" [1]), it has short-circuited a lot of disputation.

The pronoun essay was a freakin' debacle, I know. (And thank you for resisting its inclusion in Signpost; in retrospect, I wish the ed-in-chief had listened!) I've put up a whole page about what a debacle it was, at User:SMcCandlish/TG-NB, which also gives my actual views about these subjects (a lot of people have seen accusations that I'm a "transphobe", etc.).

Mobile: Yeah, I've given up on that, at least on a phone. Editing on a tablet might be more reasonable. But if I'm going to carry around a big screen, might as well be at least a netbook anyway Give me keyboard or give me death!
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]